The Delhi High Court rejected a public interest petition (PIL) seeking removal of Swati Maliwal as the chairperson of the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW), saying it appeared to be “nothing but a vested interest litigation”.
A Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Subramonium Prasad, while allowing the petition to be withdrawn, cautioned the petitioner Archana Sharma, an advocate, “to be more careful in future while filing petitions as PILs.”
The petition had sought directions to the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights to initiate an inquiry against Ms. Maliwal and to remove her from the post on the ground that she is disqualified to be a member of the statutory authority.
Vested interest
The plea also sought direction to the Delhi Police to register a case of abetment of suicide against her. “At the outset, we have indicated to learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petition appears to be nothing but a vested interest litigation rather than a public interest litigation,” the court remarked.
“...Particularly, when under the garb of referring to the incident pertaining to the “Bois Locker Room” on social media, the petitioner has questioned the qualifications of the respondent No. 4 [Ms Maliwal] for holding the subject post and has alleged that she has tried to usurp the jurisdiction, not vested in her, by law,” the court remarked.
The counsel for the Delhi government informed that this is the second attempt made by a party to target Ms. Maliwal under the garb of a public interest litigation.
The court was informed that in February 2020, one Mohit Kumar Gupta had filed a PIL, challenging the appointment of Ms, Maliwal to the post of Chairperson, DCW. That petition was dismissed as withdrawn when the court had indicated that it was not inclined to entertain the same.
The Delhi government’s counsel submitted that the present petition was “yet another circuitous route adopted to re-agitate the same issue relating to the appointment of Ms. Maliwal as DCW chairperson.
Following this, the petitioner stated that she does not wish to press the present petition and sought to withdraw it. The HC directed Ms. Sharma, that “if any PIL is filed by the petitioner in the future, she shall enclose therewith a copy of this order and make a reference thereto in the averments made in the said petition”.